ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) versus intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV t-PA) in patients with minor stroke. This meta-analysis follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Two authors independently conducted online database searches using PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE to identify articles published in English language from inception to September 5, 2023. Outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, stroke incidence, and functional outcomes (measured by modified ranking scale (mRS) scores of 0 to 1). A total of three studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and included in the final analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the risk of all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the t-PA group and DAPT group (relative risk (RR): 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.32-4.06). Compared with those treated with DAPT, there was no significant difference in t-PA in terms of the number of patients with a favorable functional outcome (defined as an mRS score of 0-1). The risk of stroke was not significantly different between the t-PA group and DAPT group (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.82). The analysis, based on three studies, revealed no significant differences between t-PA and DAPT regarding all-cause mortality, stroke incidence, and functional outcomes.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of efpeglenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The study was reported according to the 2020 guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched by two authors independently, with no restriction on language and year of publication, using the following key terms: (efpeglenatide) OR (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) AND (type 2 diabetes) OR (diabetes) OR (T2DM) AND (HbA1c) OR (FSG) OR (fasting serum glucose) OR (weight) OR (bodyweight) OR (adverse events) OR (safety) OR (AE). Outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included change in hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) from baseline (%), change in weight from baseline (Kg), and change in fasting serum glucose (FSG) from baselines. For the safety analysis, we assessed total adverse events and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. A total of four studies fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis, encompassing six randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Compared with a control group, efpeglenatide lowered the HbA1c (mean difference (MD): -0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.01 to -0.60), body weight (MD: -1.15, 95% CI: -1.82 to -0.47), and FSG (MD: -0.98, 95% CI: -1.19 to -0.77). However, the risk of GI-related adverse events was significantly higher in the efpeglenatide group compared to the control group.
ABSTRACT
Pacemakers have been accessible for six decades, and clearly defined criteria for pacemaker implantation have been established. Within the contemporary clinical practice, two dependable pacing platforms exist leadless pacemakers and transvenous pacemakers. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety of leadless pacemakers to transvenous pacemakers. This meta-analysis adhered to the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 framework. A comprehensive and systematic search was conducted across various databases including Scopus, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE, spanning from inception to August 15, 2023. The primary outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis were total complications, all-cause mortality, and device-related complications. Furthermore, secondary outcomes evaluated encompassed the need for reintervention, occurrences of pneumothorax, pericardial effusion, endocarditis, hemothorax, and hematoma. Total 17 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The findings of this study showed that patients with leadless pacemakers had a lower risk of total complications, device-related complications, pneumothorax, and endocarditis. The risk of reintervention was significantly lower in the leadless pacemaker group. However, compared to a transvenous pacemaker, the risk of pericardial effusion was significantly higher in the leadless pacemaker group. It is important to acknowledge the limitations arising from the lack of extensive long-term follow-up data for leadless pacemakers. As technology evolves, continued research will be essential in uncovering the full spectrum of prolonged complications associated with these devices.
